If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Interesting that a post in which I stated "I almost entirely agree Gerry" prompts such discussion. Here are my responses.

It does not solve the problem of 12 million illegals who will still be visiting the emergency rooms, and will not be covered by Obamacare. We need to solve that problem with immigration reform.

Discussion of illegal immigrants is a diversion. Yes, they were subsidized 30 years ago, 5 years ago, this year, and will be next year next year with or without Obamacare. The border is more secure than it ever has been. Maybe there will be some real reform.

I'm not entirely sure that the emergency room visits are at the core of the rising cost of health care. Have you found numbers on that Henry?

No, they are not a core cost. Only about 4%, which is about double the malpractice related costs.

There will also be a lot of this coverage that is subsidized. As I recall, families of four, will be eligible for subsidy up to a substantial income limit.

Yep, it all depends on income level. $29,327 and under for a family of four.

Yet, historically, tax on a product/service has been passed onto the consumer.

All costs get passed onto consumers. Not just taxes. In this case, the medical device industry, the drug companies, and the insurance industry will have new excise taxes. Only some in the medical device industry have mad a big deal out of this. Others realize that the potential losses would be offset by more sales to newly insured people.

Not totally sure this works in all scenarios. In the UK, cheapest of all is to not replace an old person's hip at all ... and that often is the option that the old person is left with.

Never said it would. I’ll stand by my statement. You can play the rationing card all you want. I know it is part of the playbook. Someone has to pay for medical care bills, now and will have to in the future. We spend far more on it than any other country bar none. 17% of our GDP.

That would mean that 80% of them do have health insurance. If we consider that many of those employees may be part-time, then that doesn't appear to be too bad, on the face of it.
-How would that compare to the amount Walmart pays in taxes each year? I don't know. Just wondering.
-That is not surprising since most of the jobs are probably low-skill, low-paying jobs ... but those may be the only jobs available to those employees.
-Could they get a better job somewhere else?
-Is there a reason for that?
-Do we know whether these people working for Walmart would be receiving benefits if they worked somewhere else in a job for which they are qualified? Would everyone be better off if Walmart didn't employ so many people? Would it cost more to provide benefits to these workers if they were not working for Walmart?
-Is Walmart to blame for having available many low-skill jobs?
- Why is it essentially wrong for Walmart to make a profit if they do so by providing a fair exchange of product and/or service for those who wish to purchase those products/services? Do other similar retailers provide better benefits and wages? There are probably some retired people that are benefiting from their early investments in Walmart stock, placing less burden on social services because they have such income from that investment.
Could these Walmart employees find better jobs elsewhere?

I appreciate the 20 questions routine. Clearly, we have different opinions about this issue. The fact remains that a very strong case can be made that the largest employer in the US run by the family that has a net worth equal to that of the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined has a substantial number of employees dependent on the government. This externalizes a bunch of the companies costs to us. You apparently think it s all the fault of the workers. I suggest that the company has some responsibility too. In your previous post you also stated: ““Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.“ Never said there was anything wrong with profit but the fiscal conservative in me takes issue with the fact that the rest of us are subsidizing it. You clearly believe that there is a right to make a certain profit margin, but apparently think that there is no associated responsibility to employee compensation. You seem to advocate a race to the bottom for wages and benefits. I disagree with this approach and think it is bad for the middle class and the economy overall.

Isn't Walmart free to earn as much as it can legally earn? If we don't approve of them, we can shop elsewhere.

Yes.

The public can voice its disapproval by buying less pizza from Papa John, and more from Pizza Hut ... or others.

Yes again.

We're going to be subsidizing everyone's employees through Obamacare ... except those who got waivers. Certain groups of people will continue to enjoy luxury benefits because they will not be fined for those luxury plans. Not knowing all that have received waivers, and for what reasons, it may be that some of those with waivers will be allowed to provide less than the benefits prescribed by Obamacare.
To me it seems ludicrous that people would be fined for paying their own pre-tax income for a better plan than the minimum plan. The govt should be delighted that those individuals will be making no demands on the overall system and are not in need of any subsidies. Aren't they already paying their fair share by paying for their own good coverage?

The number of people being subsidized is not going to change much. We all pay for the care of the uninsured now. The new system will require people to buy private health insurance, a republican idea. Search “obamacare waiver myth” to get a bit more balanced view on waiver situation. Fox news may have overplayed this one (hard to believe, I know). Yes, if you pay more than $27,500 for insurance premiums after 2018, there will be a tax. John Roberts approves.

very good pizza....but maybe they need to quit paying Peyton Manning to give away 2M pizzas or quit hosting a CFB Bowl game

Actually, Papa Johns has gone from an "also ran" to #2 in the nation in Pizza sales since talking on Manning. In the pizza buisness, image is everything and sponsoring a Bowl Game zeros in on the college market which is thier most lucrative consumer segment. Exactly why Pizza Hut recently hired Aaron Rogers to be their spokesperson.

From National Restaurant News...

For the Sept. 23-ended quarter, Papa John’s reported an 18.2-percent increase in net income to $13.2 million, or 55 cents per share, from $11.1 million, or 44 cents per share, posted in the same quarter a year earlier

And Henry, I read that story yesterday. Funny how a reporter twisting the facts can set off so much hysteria.

Last edited by Franco; 11-21-2012 at 10:12 AM.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge

Well Marvin, if you want to start a thread about what is good with this world today, please do so.

I would but it might be beyond your ability to comprehend, that's why I asked you to start it

Originally Posted by henry v

I concede that I did accidentally make one use of the term medicare. It should have said medicaid. I had no intent to bring up medicare which is a very popular program since the private sector could not afford to offer a similar product.

I disagree - had the money been properly cared for there would be ample funds - just like the govenment would make the private sector do if the private sector were offering that product. Why does the USPO lose money while their competitors do not have that issue. Why didn't you just concede that you pressed submit before you thought

Originally Posted by henry v

On the rest, we will have to disagree. I shop at WalMart as little as is possible. If you buy that unions are behind all the analysis and reports of the bad effects of walmart on wages and the job market then you have truly drunk the kool aid. Yes, I know, unions are evil and are one of the primary reasons we are going to hell in a handbasket even though they represent a small fraction of people employed and have less influence than ever before.

When your talking points sound like the union script you've lost the argument. I don't believe anyone here believes union employees are evil but most of us do agree that FDR had that one right as far as government employees are concerned..

Originally Posted by henry v

Yes, young subsidize the old, that is the system. The young who get old will be subsidized one way or another by the young in the future. That is exactly how private insurance works too. Those who do not need insurance subsidize those that do whether you are talking about cars, or homeowners, or health, or life insurance. Pooling risks is the idea.

Apparently you believe it fair to ask the young as they are starting their life to shoulder that additional burden as I've presented this to you twice.

Originally Posted by henry v

Environmental issues, yes, I work on them. Seems that you are way more interested in my personal life than I am in yours. You clearly have bought into the right wing narrative that environmental regulations are bad for the economy and another part of the root of all evil. Please take a look at state economies or national economies and their environmental regulations. Guess what?, the states/nations with the strongest regulations have the best economies, imagine that. You also seem to have drunk the kool aid on the effects of regulations and also assume that the little old environmental organizations funded on relatively tiny budgets by donations have any power relative to various industries with many millions and a bunch of lobbyists. Shall I make a long list of issues where a failure to implement reasonable regulations has resulted in huge public costs to society while industries externalized their costs and increase their profits? You know, the american way, privatize the profits and socialize the true costs.

I have 0 interest in you, only in what you post. & your postings indicate you are someone who profits from the regulations being what they are, it's that simple. Those states/nations with the strictest regulations are the ones that enact those laws as the fat, dumb & happy philosophy of most of the regulated applies. They also enjoy geopolitical advantages other locations do not. Relatively few individuals or governments have the ability to see down the road to a potential rainy day. The key word is reasonable, I would imagine what you & I would see as reasonable would be entirely different. A good example would be the Clean Water Act, IMO - regular sampling at key interchanges would identify issues, + significant penalties for non compliance - the governments way of looking at this is a plan which requires approval, oversight by folks who are marginally (if at all) qualified in the discipline, & fines for not complying with their mismanagement &/or suits from the environmental wacko's. But that's how you make your money & you will defend that till the end.